Transcription

1 GAO United States Government Accountability Office Report to the Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate September 2005 TAX ADMINISTRATION Systematic Information Sharing Would Help IRS Determine the Deductibility of Civil Settlement Payments a GAO

2 Accountability Integrity Reliability Highlights Highlights of GAO , a report to the Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate September 2005 TAX ADMINISTRATION Systematic Information Sharing Would Help IRS Determine the Deductibility of Civil Settlement Payments Why GAO Did This Study Although some civil settlement payments are deductible, their deterrence factor could be lessened if companies can deduct certain settlement payments from their income taxes. GAO was asked to (1) identify federal agencies that negotiated some of the largest dollar civil settlements, (2) determine whether selected federal agencies take tax consequences into account when negotiating settlements and officials views on whether they should address payment deductibility in settlement agreements, (3) determine whether companies with some of the largest civil settlement payments deducted any of the payments on their federal income taxes, and (4) determine what information the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) collects on civil settlements reached by federal agencies. What GAO Recommends GAO recommends that IRS work with federal agencies to develop a cost-effective means of systematically obtaining information on civil settlements that would benefit IRS in ensuring the correct tax treatment of settlement payments. IRS agreed with the recommendation and will form an executive-led team to implement it. EPA generally supported our recommendation and the other agencies did not address the recommendation. To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on the link above. For more information, contact Michael Brostek at (202) or What GAO Found The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and Department of Justice (DOJ) negotiated civil settlements that were among the largest in the federal government in fiscal years 2001 and Also, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) was involved in negotiating some of the largest dollar False Claims Act (FCA) health-care civil settlements for which DOJ has primary responsibility. The largest civil settlements at these agencies ranged from about $870 thousand to over $1 billion. Officials in the four agencies we surveyed said that they do not negotiate with settling companies about whether settlement amounts are tax deductible. They said it was IRS s role to determine deductibility. In preparing to negotiate environmental settlements, EPA and DOJ may consider certain tax issues in calculating the amounts they propose to seek. This calculation estimates a company s economic benefit, that is, the financial gain from not complying with the law. Some DOJ environmental settlements with civil penalties have language stating that penalties are not deductible. DOJ officials said since the law is generally clear that civil penalties paid to a government are not deductible, stating so in the agreement was merely restating the law and is not necessary. The majority of companies responding to GAO s survey on how they treated civil settlement payments for federal income tax purposes deducted civil settlement payments when their settlement agreements did not label the payments as penalties. GAO received responses on 34 settlements totaling over $1 billion. For 20 settlements, companies reported deducting some portion or all of their settlement payments. IRS does not systematically receive civil settlement information from all four agencies. IRS officials said that a permanent system for agencies to provide information would be useful. IRS obtains information on a case-by-case basis from public sources and agencies. IRS also has two temporary compliance projects focusing on tax issues that affect settlement payment deductibility. In 2004, IRS introduced a tax schedule to provide information on a company s fines, penalties, and punitive damages. Approximate Ranges and Cumulative Values of the 20 Largest Civil Settlement Agreements at the Four Agencies Contacted in Each Year for Both Fiscal Years 2001 and 2002 Agency Smallest Largest Cumulative value EPA $1 million $1 billion $4.1 billion SEC $870 thousand $114 million $607 million HHS $3 million $790 million $2 billion DOJ $12 million $471 million $3.3 billion Source: GAO analysis of EPA, SEC, HHS, and DOJ data. Note: Settlement values include payments to the U.S. government. EPA settlements also include estimated costs for any pollution controls, other complying actions and Supplemental Environmental Projects. HHS settlements are for FCA cases negotiated with DOJ. EPA settlements led by DOJ are included in the EPA category. United States Government Accountability Office

3 Contents Letter 1 Results in Brief 3 Background 6 Civil Settlements Negotiated by EPA, SEC, HHS, and DOJ Were among the Largest in Fiscal Years 2001 and The Four Agencies Do Not Negotiate the Tax Deductibility of Settlement Amounts, but Two Agencies Consider Aspects of Taxes in Determining Amounts for Negotiations 9 A Majority of the Surveyed Companies Deducted Civil Settlement Payments, Generally When Settlement Agreements Did Not Label Payments as Civil Penalties 18 No Permanent System Is in Place for Agencies to Routinely Inform IRS of Civil Settlements or Provide Other Settlement Information That IRS Would Find Useful 21 Conclusions 25 Recommendation for Executive Action 26 Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 26 Appendix I Scope and Methodology 29 Appendix II Selected IRS Audit Results Information on Companies with Civil Settlement Payments 35 Appendix III Comments from the Internal Revenue Service 36 Appendix IV Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency 38 Appendix V Comments from the Securities and Exchange Commission 44 Page i

4 Appendix VI Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services 45 Appendix VII GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 46 Tables Table 1: Approximate Ranges and Cumulative Values of the 20 Largest Civil Settlement Agreements at the Four Agencies Contacted in Each Year for Both Fiscal Years 2001 and Table 2: Practices of Four Federal Agencies regarding Tax Issues They Consider during Settlement Negotiations and in Settlement Agreements 10 Table 3: Company Responses on Whether They Deducted Civil Settlement Payments from Their Federal Income Taxes 18 Table 4: Company Responses on Whether They Deducted Various Types of Civil Settlement Payments 19 This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately. Page ii

5 United States Government Accountability Office Washington, DC September 15, 2005 The Honorable Charles E. Grassley Chairman The Honorable Max Baucus Ranking Minority Member Committee on Finance United States Senate The value of civil settlements that federal regulatory agencies annually reach with those who violate laws or regulations can exceed billions of dollars. Civil settlements, 1 which can be used to avoid litigation, are one of the enforcement tools some agencies can use to correct violations and punish those who violate laws or regulations by imposing penalties or other actions. Many civil settlements with federal agencies may require that the entities settling with the agencies make monetary payments. When negotiating settlements, agencies consider many factors, which may include whether payments are sufficient in size to deter the violator or others from violating applicable laws or regulations in the future and mitigate any economic benefit that the violator gained from not complying. The deterrence effect of monetary payments could be lessened if violators are able to deduct the civil settlement payments from their income taxes since deductions reduce the amount of tax violators would otherwise pay. In general, payments that are intended to punish (punitive payments) a violator are not deductible and payments made to compensate (compensatory payments) those who were harmed by a violation are deductible under federal law. Nevertheless, it may not always be clear which payments are deductible, in part because the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) 2 does not address the deductibility of all types of payments that may be made pursuant to a civil settlement and the statutes imposing the payments may be unclear regarding whether they are punitive, compensatory, or both. Over the last several years, concerns that some companies deducted, or planned to deduct, large civil settlement payments 1 In this report, civil settlements are formal legal agreements between agencies and alleged violators to resolve a lawsuit or potential lawsuit. The terms agencies use to refer to civil settlement agreements may vary U.S.C. et seq. Page 1

6 from their federal income taxes have heightened Congress s interest in this area. Because of your interest in obtaining information on how agencies address tax issues for civil settlements and how companies have treated civil settlement payments on their federal income tax returns, you asked us to review some of the largest settlement agreements and determine how some companies have treated their civil settlement payments for federal tax purposes. As agreed, the objectives of this report are to (1) identify federal agencies that negotiated some of the largest dollar civil settlements in recent years, (2) determine whether the selected federal agencies having some of the largest civil settlements take tax consequences into account when negotiating settlements and officials views on whether they should address the deductibility of payments in the agreements, (3) determine whether the companies that paid some of the largest civil settlement payments deducted any of the payments on their federal income tax returns, and (4) determine what information the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) collects on civil settlements reached by federal agencies. To identify federal agencies that negotiated the largest dollar civil settlements in recent years, we analyzed information from various sources, including agencies Web sites, annual reports and enforcement reports, and other available information. Based on our analysis of the information, we concluded that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and the Department of Justice (DOJ) negotiated some of largest civil settlements in fiscal years 2001 and We also included the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) because HHS was involved in negotiating some of the largest dollar False Claims Act (FCA) health care civil settlements that DOJ has primary responsibility to negotiate. 3 We selected this time frame since it would allow the settling companies time to pay the settlements; determine the applicable tax treatments, if any; and file federal income tax returns. We interviewed officials in these agencies to identify and obtain copies of their largest civil settlements. To determine whether the four federal agencies having some of the largest civil settlements take tax consequences into account when negotiating 3 HHS s role in these negotiations includes recommending an appropriate settlement amount to DOJ. Page 2

7 civil settlements, we determined whether the agencies negotiate with companies about whether civil settlement amounts are tax deductible and whether the agencies considered any aspects of taxes when internally deciding on what settlement amounts they should present for the negotiations. In making these determinations, we reviewed the underlying agreements and obtained information on the agencies civil settlement policies and procedures, including whether they address tax issues, and interviewed officials. We also obtained agency officials views on whether they should address the deductibility of payments in the agreements. To determine whether the companies that paid some of the largest civil settlement payments deducted any of the payments on their federal income tax returns, we developed a questionnaire to survey the companies. We did not independently verify the responses of the surveyed companies. To determine what information IRS collects on civil settlements reached by federal agencies, we interviewed knowledgeable officials from IRS and the four agencies and reviewed supporting documentation about what information, if any, IRS obtains from the four selected agencies regarding their civil settlement agreements. You also asked us to provide information on whether corporate taxpayers deductions for settlement payments were being examined in IRS audits and the outcome of the audits. To obtain this information, we interviewed IRS officials concerning our work and requested information on whether corporate taxpayers deductions for settlement payments were being examined in audits and the outcome of the audits. Appendix II provides this information. We assessed the reliability of the lists of the largest settlement agreements identified by the agencies and found them to be sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our reporting objectives. Our work was conducted from February 2004 through June 2005 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. (See app. I for a more detailed description of our scope and methodology.) Results in Brief Four agencies EPA, SEC, HHS, 4 and DOJ negotiated civil settlement agreements that were among the largest negotiated by the federal 4 HHS settlements were for FCA cases for which DOJ had primary responsibility. Page 3

8 government in fiscal years 2001 and The cumulative value of their 160 largest settlements exceeded $9 billion. The settlements ranged in size from just under $1 million to over $1 billion. For example, the payments required under SEC s civil settlements ranged from about $870 thousand to about $114 million, and the estimated value of EPA s settlements ranged from about $1 million to over $1 billion (see table 1 and the table notes). Officials in the four agencies we surveyed said that they do not negotiate with settling companies about whether settlement amounts are tax deductible. Some officials said it was IRS s role to determine deductibility. Before entering into a settlement with the settling companies for environmental settlements, EPA and DOJ officials consider tax issues in determining the economic benefit a settling company gained from noncompliance. This takes into account whether a company would have incurred tax deductible costs if it had complied with the law, such as a one-time nondepreciable expenditure and applies the violator s appropriate year-specific combined state and federal marginal tax rates to the costs. Other than some settlements with civil penalties containing language stating that the penalties are not deductible, the settlement agreements we reviewed generally did not specify the deductibility of settlement amounts, which was consistent with what the agency officials told us. As an example of the exceptions, we found that some DOJ environmental settlements with civil penalties did include language in the agreement between DOJ and the settling company that the penalties would not be deducted for federal income tax purposes. DOJ officials said that including such language is not standard practice and emphasized that since the law is generally clear that civil penalties paid to a government are not deductible, stating so in the settlement agreement is merely restating the law. The majority of the companies responding to our survey on how companies treated civil settlement payments for federal income tax purposes deducted settlement payments when their settlement agreements did not label the payments as penalties. We received responses on the companies tax treatment of 34 civil settlements with total amounts exceeding $1 billion. The companies reported deducting some or their entire civil settlement amount for 20 of the 34 settlements. In 2 of these settlements, company representatives said they erred in deducting the civil penalty payments totaling about $1.9 million and told us they would file amended tax returns. For 3 of the 15 settlements for which companies deducted some or all of their DOJ FCA settlement payments, companies reported that language in their settlement agreements was a rationale for the deductions, although DOJ told us that Page 4

9 language did not pertain to tax deductibility. The total amount of deductions taken by these 5 companies exceeded $100 million. DOJ changed the language for future FCA settlements based on our findings. Furthermore, three companies that deducted FCA settlement payments reported that they did so in whole or in part because their settlement agreements contained language stating that the company denied wrongdoing. Their deductions totaled about $15.5 million. IRS does not generally receive civil settlement information in a systematic manner from the four agencies we surveyed, although IRS obtains some settlement information from those agencies on a case-by-case basis to use in determining whether companies properly treated settlement amounts for tax purposes. IRS officials told us that a permanent system for agencies to provide IRS with timely civil settlement information could help, for instance, in selecting firms to audit. Officials of the four agencies in our review expressed willingness to work with IRS to provide settlement information. IRS has two temporary compliance projects that collect information on tax issues that affect the deductibility of settlement amounts made pursuant to FCA and environmental settlement agreements in part to help IRS address improper deductions during examinations. In association with one of the compliance projects, DOJ recently agreed to provide information about large FCA settlements shortly after they are closed and information on all FCA cases annually for the duration of the project. In addition, in 2004, IRS introduced Schedule M-3, which could also help IRS in identifying companies with civil settlements because it captures some information on fines, penalties, and punitive damages from companies with total assets of $10 million or more. We are recommending that the Commissioner of Internal Revenue direct the appropriate officials to work with federal agencies that reach large civil settlements to develop a cost effective means of obtaining information on settlement agreements that would be beneficial to IRS in ensuring the correct tax treatment of the settlement amounts. In commenting on a draft of this report (see app. III), the Commissioner of Internal Revenue agreed with our recommendation and will form an executive-led team to implement it. EPA also provided comments and said they generally supported our recommendation (see app. IV). SEC provided written comments but did not address our recommendation (see app. V). HHS sent a letter stating they had no comments but provided technical comments (see app. VI). DOJ also provided technical comments. We made changes to our report to incorporate the agencies comments as appropriate. Page 5

10 Background Civil settlements are one of several enforcement tools used by some federal agencies to help ensure that individuals and companies comply with the laws and regulations they enforce. For purposes of this report, civil settlements involve negotiations by federal agencies with companies to resolve issues about their compliance with laws and regulations. The negotiation process can involve discussions between agency officials and a company about each party s proposals to address the compliance problem and can end with a written agreement that reflects the terms reached by the settling parties. In such cases, the civil settlements generally require a company to agree to perform certain activities or stop engaging in certain activities. Some settlements also require that monetary payments be made to the government and to others. When determining settlement amounts, agencies consider various factors, including thresholds for fines and penalties set by federal statutes for violations and the severity of the violation. While some agencies have administrative authority to enter into civil settlements, some cases are required to be referred to DOJ for resolution. For these cases, DOJ may settle with the defendant or take the defendant to court. Of the four agencies we contacted, DOJ is responsible for certain environmental settlements on behalf of EPA and certain civil health care fraud cases on behalf of HHS. Section 162 of the IRC provides a deduction for all ordinary and necessary business expenses, including settlements and similar payments. This provision is subject to an exception in IRC 162(f) that denies a deduction for any fine or similar penalty paid to the government for the violation of any law. 5 The definition of fine or similar penalty includes an amount paid in the settlement of the taxpayer s actual or potential liability for a fine or penalty (civil or criminal). 6 Furthermore, Treasury regulations provide that payments made as compensatory damages paid to a 5 Recently, several legislative proposals have been introduced, but not enacted, to modify the rules for deducting fines or similar penalties paid to the government for the violation of any law. Currently, a proposed provision in S. 1565, 109th Cong. 207 (2005), would provide that amounts paid or incurred (whether by suit, agreement, or otherwise) to or at the direction of a government in relation to the violation of any law or the investigation or inquiry into the potential violation of any law are nondeductible. The bill contains an exception for restitution. Amounts paid to certain self-regulatory entities that impose sanctions, such as the National Association of Securities Dealers, are treated similarly for purposes of the proposal. 6 Treas. Reg (b)(1)(iii). Page 6

11 government do not constitute a fine or penalty. 7 In general, IRS views punitive payments as being nondeductible and compensatory payments as being deductible. Although the terms used to describe a payment required as part of a civil settlement may provide an indication of whether the amount is deductible or not, according to IRS, often it is necessary to look to the intent of the law requiring the payment or the facts and circumstances of the settlement to determine whether a payment is deductible. Civil settlement agreements we reviewed use terms other than compensatory or punitive to describe settlement payments. For instance, some agencies use terms like restitution or disgorgement for payments that are intended to compensate the government or others. 8 Even when a term used to describe a payment may seem to indicate that a payment is not deductible, in fact, the opposite may be the case. For example, a payment labeled as a civil penalty 9 and that seems not deductible may be deductible if it is imposed as a remedial measure to compensate the government or other party. Or, payments that will be used for remedial or compensatory purposes and seem deductible may not be so if the law requiring the payment indicates the payment is to have a punitive or deterrent effect. IRS and courts look to the purpose of the statute, including the legislative history and administrative and judicial interpretation, to determine whether a payment serves a punitive or compensatory purpose. If the law is unclear, or if the statute serves both punitive and compensatory purposes, the facts and circumstances of the specific settlement payment, including the terms of the settlement agreement, often need to be examined to determine the purpose the parties intended the payment to serve. Until recently, IRS did not have a tax form that could be used to identify whether a fine or penalty had been deducted for tax purposes. Effective for any tax year ending on or after December 31, 2004, corporations with consolidated assets of $10 million or more that are required to file IRS Form 1120, the corporate income tax return, must also file Schedule M-3. Schedule M-3 requires companies to reconcile financial accounting net income (or loss) with taxable net income and expense and deduction 7 Treas. Reg (b)(2). 8 Restitution is the return or restoration of some specific thing to its rightful owner or status. Disgorgement is the act of giving up something (such as profits illegally obtained) on demand or by legal compulsion. 9 A civil penalty is a fine assessed for violation of a statute or regulation. Page 7

12 items. The 2004 Schedule M-3 line items for reconciliation include fines, penalties, and punitive damages. Civil Settlements Negotiated by EPA, SEC, HHS, and DOJ Were among the Largest in Fiscal Years 2001 and 2002 In fiscal years 2001 and 2002, EPA, SEC, HHS, and DOJ negotiated some of the largest civil settlements in the federal government. The civil settlements we examined ranged in size from about $870 thousand to over $1 billion. (See table 1.) For example, a 2001 EPA judicial settlement related to the Clean Air Act required a utility company to significantly reduce harmful air pollution from its power plants at an estimated cost of over $1 billion and pay a $3.5 million fine. The cumulative value for the 20 largest settlements for fiscal year 2001 and the 20 largest settlements for fiscal year 2002 at the four agencies a total of 160 settlements exceeded $9 billion. 10 Table 1: Approximate Ranges and Cumulative Values of the 20 Largest Civil Settlement Agreements at the Four Agencies Contacted in Each Year for Both Fiscal Years 2001 and 2002 Agency Smallest Largest Cumulative value EPA a $1 million $1 billion $4.1 billion SEC $870 thousand $114 million $607 million HHS b $3 million $790 million $2 billion DOJ c $12 million $471 million $3.3 billion Source: GAO analysis of EPA, SEC, HHS, and DOJ data. Notes: For settlements identified by SEC, HHS, and DOJ, the total value of settlements reflects payments payable to the U.S. government and other recipients such as the relator, also known as the whistleblower. For settlements identified by EPA, the total value of settlements included payments payable to the U.S. government; the estimated cost of any Supplemental Environmental Projects; and the estimated costs of pollution controls, monitoring equipment, or other complying actions that companies are required to take to come into compliance with environmental laws. The penalty portion ranged from approximately $500,000 to almost $10 million, and the cumulative value of the penalty amount for these settlements was about $124.3 million. a EPA settlements, including those for which DOJ led the negotiations, are included under the EPA category. b The settlements identified by HHS include only FCA settlements. HHS officials told us FCA settlements, which DOJ negotiates, are the largest of the agency s civil settlements. c The list of settlements obtained from DOJ was of cases closed in fiscal years 2001 and The dollar values of settlements provided were net of relators fees. 10 This total differs from the sum of the agency cumulative value in table 1 because we excluded 7 of the FCA settlements identified by HHS that were also included in DOJ s list of the 20 largest civil settlements for fiscal year 2001 and the 20 largest civil settlements for fiscal year Page 8

13 The Four Agencies Do Not Negotiate the Tax Deductibility of Settlement Amounts, but Two Agencies Consider Aspects of Taxes in Determining Amounts for Negotiations Officials in the four agencies said that they do not take tax consequences into account during negotiations with settling parties, that is, they do not negotiate with companies about the deductibility of settlement amounts. 11 They said they generally do not have tax expertise and that determining deductibility of settlement amounts is IRS s role. When negotiating, officials said they look to the relevant laws and regulations and the facts and circumstances of the case, including the severity of the violation and the strength of the evidence against the violator to determine the settlement amount to seek. In preparing for negotiations, two agencies EPA and DOJ consider certain tax issues in calculating the amounts they propose to seek in negotiating environmental settlements. This calculation estimates a company s financial gain from not complying with the law, that is, their economic benefit. The agencies factor in whether the company would have incurred tax deductible expenses to stay in compliance and apply the violator s year-specific combined state and federal marginal tax rates to the costs of complying on time and complying late. Except for some settlement agreements stating that civil penalties are not deductible, the agencies written civil settlement agreements we reviewed generally did not specify the deductibility of settlement amounts. As an exception to this general practice, we found that some DOJ environmental settlements with civil penalties included language indicating that the penalties would not be deducted for federal income tax purposes. DOJ Environmental and Natural Resources (ENR) Division officials explained that when a settlement agreement includes civil penalties, their attorneys have discretion about whether to include such language in an agreement. The officials emphasized that the law is generally clear that civil penalties paid to a government are not deductible and stating so in the agreement is essentially restating the law and is not necessary. In addition, in 2003, subsequent to the time frame of the settlements we reviewed, SEC adopted a policy of requiring settlement agreements with civil penalties to include language stating that the settling parties would not deduct civil penalties for tax purposes. Table 2 describes the four agencies practices regarding how they consider tax issues during their settlement negotiation processes, including drafting the terms of their settlement agreements. The settlement agreements we reviewed were consistent with the practices described to us by the agencies officials. These practices are current as of June Because 11 Although DOJ has lead responsibility for negotiating FCA cases on behalf of HHS, HHS is involved in the negotiations process, including recommending settlement amounts to DOJ. Page 9

14 each settlement agreement is unique, settlements negotiated by these agencies can have some exceptions to the practices listed in the table. Table 2: Practices of Four Federal Agencies regarding Tax Issues They Consider during Settlement Negotiations and in Settlement Agreements Agency EPA Administrative environmental settlements Does the agency negotiate with settling parties about whether settlement amounts are tax deductible? No. Does the agency consider any aspects of taxes when calculating its proposed settlement amount? Yes, if applicable to determine the economic benefit portion of a civil penalty and if applicable as part of valuing Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEP) a company agrees to undertake as part of a settlement. Does the written settlement agreement include specific information about the deductibility of the settlement amount? Yes, when settlements include civil penalties, some agreements state that civil penalties are not deductible. Also when a company has said it will not deduct the cost of a SEP, the government takes this into account when determining the value of the SEP, and the agreement will specify that the company will not deduct the costs of the SEP. SEC settlements a No. No. Yes, since 2003, settlements that include civil penalties are to state that the civil penalties are not deductible. HHS settlements b No. No. No. DOJ FCA settlements No. No. No. Judicial environmental settlements No. Source: GAO analysis. Yes, if applicable to determine the economic benefit portion of a civil penalty and if applicable as part of valuing SEPs a company agrees to undertake as part of a settlement. Yes, when settlements include civil penalties, some agreements state that civil penalties are not deductible. Also when a company has said it will not deduct the cost of a SEP, the government takes this into account when determining the value of the SEP, and the agreement will specify that the company will not deduct the costs of the SEP. a In 2003, SEC implemented a policy that settlements with civil penalties are to include language stating that the civil penalties would not be deducted. Agreements negotiated before SEC implemented this policy do not include such language. b The HHS settlements we reviewed were FCA civil health care fraud cases negotiated by DOJ. As table 2 shows, the selected agencies do not negotiate with companies about whether they can deduct any portion of their settlement from their income taxes. In determining their negotiating position and any changes to agree to during negotiations, officials generally look to factors such as the relevant laws and regulations and the facts and circumstances of the case, including the severity of the violation and the strength of evidence against Page 10

15 the violator. Officials in the four agencies said that determining deductibility is IRS s role, and they generally do not have the expertise to address the deductibility of payments during negotiations or to specify the tax consequences of amounts in the settlements. IRS staff agreed and said that if agencies were to specify whether a settlement amount is deductible, there could be a risk that the agencies might concede tax consequences in order to reach a settlement. The following information summarizes the policies, procedures, and views of the agencies on taking taxes into account during negotiations and specifying the tax deductibility of settlement payments in the agreements. EPA EPA s mission is to protect the environment and address related human health impacts. EPA can reach civil administrative and judicial enforcement settlements against violators of environmental laws, and its priorities in negotiating settlements are to ensure that violators come into compliance with the law, punish past violations and deter future violations, obtain restoration of environmental damage resulting from violations, and impose civil penalties sufficient to recover any economic benefit gained as a result of the violator s noncompliance and deter future violations. EPA negotiated the civil administrative settlements under its own authority without a judicial process. Cases that are brought and settled by DOJ on behalf of EPA are referred to as civil judicial enforcement settlements. DOJ s policies, procedures, and officials views for these cases are discussed in the DOJ section of this report. All EPA civil settlements we reviewed included payments labeled as civil penalties for violations of environmental laws or regulations. In addition, the value of the settlements sometimes included estimated amounts a company may incur to achieve and maintain compliance with the environmental laws and regulations, such as installing a new pollution control device to reduce air pollution or prevent emissions of a pollutant. Also, some settlements included SEPs, which are projects a company agrees to undertake in addition to complying actions. IRS is currently reviewing the deductibility of SEPs. Civil penalties in EPA settlements are generally composed of two parts: economic benefit and gravity. Economic benefit represents the financial gains that a violator accrues by delaying expenditures necessary to comply with environmental regulations, avoiding them, or both. Under EPA s civil penalty policy, the goal of recovering the economic benefit of noncompliance is to place the violator in the same position as if Page 11

16 compliance had been achieved from the start. The amount EPA includes in a civil penalty to account for the seriousness of the violation is referred to as the gravity portion of the penalty. EPA includes the gravity portion of the penalty to provide deterrence against future noncompliance. When calculating the gravity portion of the initial civil penalty amount, EPA adjusts the gravity-based penalty on various case-specific factors, including the strength of evidence against the company and the company s degree of cooperation and history of noncompliance. When calculating the economic benefit portion of civil penalties, EPA uses an economic computer model to estimate any financial advantage a company gained from not complying with environmental laws. EPA s economic computer model takes into account whether a company would have incurred tax deductible costs if it had complied with the law, such as a one-time nondepreciable expenditure, in estimating the economic benefit a company gained by not complying with environmental laws or regulations. The computer model applies the appropriate year-specific combined state and federal marginal tax rates of the violator in calculating economic benefit along with standard financial cash flow and net present value analysis techniques to calculate the costs of complying on time and of complying late. When calculating the gravity portion of civil penalties, EPA officials consider the facts surrounding each violation, including factors such as the actual or possible harm caused by the violation, the size of the violation, and the goals of the specific environmental program. EPA officials acknowledged that they negotiate with violators about the size of the gravity portion of the penalty, but said in doing so they consider factors such as the strength of their position and not whether the violator may be able to claim a tax deduction. When EPA settlements include civil penalty payments, 12 EPA s practice is to explicitly label these payments as civil penalties. In some settlements with civil penalties, the settlement agreements also reference IRC 162(f), which states that penalties payable to a government are nondeductible. Officials noted that including language referencing IRC 162(f) is not EPA s usual practice. EPA officials said that they believe the law is clear that civil penalties payable to a government are generally nondeductible, 12 In some cases, such as when the settlement only requires a company to come into compliance, a settlement does not include a civil penalty payment. Page 12

17 so they do not see inclusion of such language in settlement agreements as necessary. As part of some settlements, companies perform SEPs, which are projects not required by law, that are voluntarily undertaken by a respondent in exchange for possible penalty mitigation. 13 EPA may mitigate the civil penalty ultimately assessed as part of the settlement, when a respondent agrees to undertake a SEP. EPA still collects a civil penalty as part of the settlement in accordance with its 1998 SEP policy, which calls for collecting the greater of 25 percent of the gravity component of the penalty, or 10 percent of the gravity, plus economic benefit. To determine the value of SEPs, EPA uses an economic computer model, and if a company tells EPA that it plans to deduct the SEP costs, EPA factors the company s decision into valuing the SEP through the model. EPA officials said that they are not involved in a violator s decision to deduct the SEP costs and that they take the violator s decision at face value. SEC SEC is responsible for administering and enforcing federal securities laws and regulations and fostering fair and efficient markets for the trading of securities. SEC enforcement officials told us that in enforcing the securities laws, they aim to protect investors and punish violators. In performing its enforcement role, SEC may, among other actions, negotiate civil settlements with those who violate securities laws. When appropriate, SEC provides that violators make monetary payments that generally include amounts for civil penalties and disgorgement. The SEC settlement agreements we reviewed included penalties for violations of the securities laws. These settlements also included disgorgement, in which SEC attempts to ensure that violators of securities laws or regulations do not profit from their illegal activity, and when appropriate, these disgorged profits are returned to investors. The IRC does not specifically address the deductibility of disgorgement. Although IRS looks at the individual facts and circumstances of a case to 13 In B (July 7, 1992) we concluded that EPA lacked authority to settle certain EPA actions by entering into SEPs. Further, in B (Mar. 1, 1993) we concluded that the Miscellaneous Receipts Act, 21 U.S.C. 3302, which requires all federal agencies to remit all penalties to the U.S. Treasury, was circumvented when alleged violators were allowed to make payments to an institution other than the federal government. According to EPA officials, subsequent to our decisions, EPA made substantial changes to its SEP policy to address our concerns. We did not assess the changes to EPA s SEP policy. Page 13

18 determine deductibility, it has generally regarded disgorgement payments as compensatory, and therefore tax deductible. As previously discussed, Treasury regulations provide that in civil actions, compensatory damages paid to a government do not constitute a fine or a penalty. 14 SEC s Chief Counsel for Enforcement emphasized that SEC s decision on how much of a settlement payment is penalty versus disgorgement is based solely on the facts and circumstances of the case, including the law violated, the degree of harm, and the seriousness of the violation. However, the official further said that although SEC does not negotiate with settling parties about the deductibility of settlement payments, settling parties may initiate negotiations with SEC about how the settlement payment is to be allocated between penalty and disgorgement. Although settling parties may seek a larger disgorgement amount because it is generally tax deductible, SEC staff make recommendations for disgorgement and penalties based on their analysis. In 2003, SEC implemented a policy requiring all civil settlement agreements with penalties to include language that expressly prohibits the settling party from taking a tax deduction or seeking to recover from an insurance carrier the penalty portions of the settlement payment. SEC adopted standardized language prohibiting deductions as a result of the Global Research settlement, in which 10 Wall Street companies settled for a combined $875 million in civil penalties and disgorgement. There were reports that some of the settling companies were planning to take deductions for the civil penalty portion of the settlement payments that would be placed into funds for investors who were harmed by the companies violations. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 allows SEC, in appropriate cases, to add penalties to the disgorgement fund for the benefit of harmed investors, pursuant to the fair fund provisions of the act. 15 SEC provides in its standardized settlement language that such amounts are to be treated as penalties for tax purposes. SEC s settlement agreements are silent on the tax deductibility of disgorgement. Senior SEC officials noted that in their view, decisions about the deductibility of disgorgement should be left to IRS. 14 Treas. Reg (b)(2). 15 Pub. L. No , 308, 116 Stat. 745 (2002). Page 14

19 HHS HHS is the principal federal agency responsible for protecting the health of American citizens and providing essential human services. HHS s largest civil settlements are generally FCA cases relating to civil health care fraud. FCA generally provides that anyone who knowingly submits false claims to the government is liable for damages up to three times the amount of the damages sustained by the government plus penalties from $5,500 to $11,000 for each false claim submitted. Although many FCA cases involve civil health care fraud against the Medicare and Medicaid programs that HHS administers, the act is also used in settling other types of fraud perpetrated against the federal government, such as defense contractor fraud. A civil health care FCA case, for example, could involve a health care provider who grossly overcharged for medical services rendered and then filed claims for reimbursement at the overcharged rates. Usually, civil health care fraud cases are based on referrals from federal and state investigative agencies and private persons. 16 DOJ is responsible for representing the United States in FCA cases and therefore negotiates the FCA settlements. DOJ s Civil Division carries out those responsibilities along with U.S. Attorneys Offices located across the country. Accordingly, DOJ sets the overall policy for civil health care fraud FCA settlements. For health care settlements, HHS s Office of Inspector General (OIG) provides DOJ assistance in several ways, including investigating individuals and companies that may have abused the HHS health care programs, and sometimes works with DOJ to determine the amount of single damages, that is, the amount of loss sustained by the government due to the violator s actions. DOJ DOJ negotiates settlement agreements on behalf of other federal agencies, including some cases involving HHS and EPA. The DOJ settlement agreements we reviewed were limited to FCA settlements negotiated by DOJ s Civil Division and judicial environmental settlements negotiated by DOJ s ENR Division. The FCA cases negotiated by DOJ that we reviewed contained a single payment labeled as a settlement amount, which does not characterize the extent to which payments are for single or multiple damages or civil penalties. All of the DOJ-led environmental settlement agreements that we reviewed included amounts labeled as penalties and some included SEPs. 16 Private persons, known as relators, can bring actions for violations of FCA. 31 U.S.C Page 15

20 In negotiating FCA civil settlement agreements, DOJ Civil Division officials said that they do not consider or discuss any aspects of taxes. In calculating the settlement amount for FCA cases, DOJ first assesses the amount of damages the violation cost the government and seeks to recover the full amount. It also considers the severity of the violation in determining whether the settling company should pay a multiple of the assessed damages and civil penalties. DOJ Civil Division officials stated that they do not include language on the deductibility of payments in their written FCA settlement agreements. In fact, according to the officials, all FCA settlements contain DOJ s standard settlement agreement language, which states that nothing in the agreement characterizes the payments for federal income tax purposes. DOJ Civil Division officials said that this language supports the agency s policy of not addressing the tax treatment of settlement payments in settlements agreements. DOJ Civil Division and IRS officials told us that the agencies came to a mutual agreement that DOJ s tax-neutral practices on the deductibility of civil settlement payments are appropriate. Furthermore, officials added that the settlement agreements refer to the payments as a settlement amount because the negotiations with the settling party usually involved agreeing on a lump sum amount without characterizing the payment into categories such as single, double, or treble damages and civil penalties. Officials said they do not categorize the payments more specifically because doing so would add complexity to the negotiation process by adding additional factors on which to obtain agreement between the parties. Thus, the agreement does not characterize the extent to which the settlement payment is punitive or compensatory. According to IRS staff, single damages are generally considered compensatory and therefore tax deductible, and any multiple damages and civil penalties are generally considered punitive and therefore nondeductible. Officials in DOJ s Civil Division and HHS s OIG said that even though FCA allows for the assessment of penalties in addition to multiple damages, penalties are not always sought. The HHS officials said that penalties are not generally sought in FCA settlements because collecting a multiplier of damages is sufficient to compensate the government and provide a deterrence. DOJ also negotiates environmental cases on behalf of EPA. EPA refers to cases it sends to DOJ to settle as judicial cases since they are not resolved under EPA s administrative authority. EPA staff assist DOJ staff in Page 16

November 9, 2006 Deficit Reduction Act Employee Information Requirements The Deficit Reduction Act ( DRA ) requires states participating in the Medicaid program to amend their State Plans to mandate that

Fighting Medicare Fraud More Bang for the Federal Buck prepared for Taxpayers Against Fraud Education Fund by Jack A. Meyer President Economic and Social Research Institute APRIL 2005 Statement of Purpose

Pharmacy Fraud, Waste and Abuse Policy 1.0 Compliance Assurance This Fraud Waste and Abuse Policy ( Policy ) reiterates the commitment of this pharmacy to comply with the standards of conduct established

UPDATED OIG Guidelines for Evaluating State False Claims Acts Note: These guidelines are effective March 15, 2013, and replace the guidelines effective on August 21, 2006, found at 71 FR 48552. UPDATED

AN ACT IN THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA To amend the District of Columbia Procurement Practices Act of 1985 to make the District s false claims act consistent with federal law and thereby qualify

U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL FINAL REPORT USE OF APPROPRIATED FUNDS TO SETTLE A CLAIM EVALUATION REPORT NO. I-EV-EAC-01-10 SEPTEMBER 2010 U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Requesters September 2013 HEALTH CARE FRAUD AND ABUSE CONTROL PROGRAM Indicators Provide Information on Program Accomplishments, but

Stricken language would be deleted from and underlined language would be added to present law. State of Arkansas 90th General Assembly A Bill Regular Session, 2015 SENATE BILL 830 By: Senator D. Sanders

H. R. 4173 466 activities and evaluates the effectiveness of the Ombudsman during the preceding year. The Investor Advocate shall include the reports required under this section in the reports required

GAO United States Government Accountability Office Report to the Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate June 2008 TAX DEBT COLLECTION IRS Has a Complex Process to Attempt to Collect Billions of Dollars in Unpaid

PAGE 1 OF 5 I. PURPOSE The purpose of this Policy is to fulfill the requirements of Section 6032 of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 by providing to Creighton University employees and employees of contractors

NEW YORK CITY FALSE CLAIMS ACT Administrative Code 7-801 through 7-810 * 7-801. Short title. This chapter shall be known as the "New York city false claims act." 7-802. Definitions. For purposes of this

Policies of the University of North Texas Health Science Center 3.102 Detecting and Responding to Fraud, Waste and Abuse Chapter 3 Compliance Policy Statement UNTHSC developed and implemented a Compliance

Sunrise Community, Inc. and Affiliates, the Organization, shall comply with Section 6032 of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. The Whistleblower Protection Policy is designed to encourage and enable directors,

Oklahoma Company-affiliated facilities in Oklahoma must ensure that all employees, including management, and any contractors or agents are educated regarding the federal and state false claims statutes

Page Number: 1 of 7 TITLE: PURPOSE: FRAUD, WASTE, AND ABUSE The Harris County Hospital District implemented a Corporate Compliance Program in an effort to establish effective internal controls that promote

SUBJECT: CORPORATE COMPLIANCE: BILLING & CODING COMPLIANCE MISSION: Quality, honesty and integrity, in everything we do, are important values to all of us who are associated with ENTITY NAME ( ENTITY NAME

April 24, 2008 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE The United States Government and a Georgia Whistleblower Reach a Historic False Claims Act and Stark Settlement Against Memorial Health University Medical Center, the

PURPOSE This policy complies with requirements under the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 and other federal and state fraud and abuse laws. It provides guidance on activities that could result in incidents

1. PURPOSE CHAMPAIGN COUNTY NURSING HOME SUMMARY OF ANTI-FRAUD AND ABUSE POLICIES Champaign County Nursing Home ( CCNH ) has established anti-fraud and abuse policies to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse

SETTLEMENTS AND JUDGMENTS YOU MEAN I HAVE TO PAY TAXES? By: Geoffrey N. Taylor, Esq. I. INCOME TO PLAINTIFF A. Distinction between settlements and judgments. B. Basic rule is the origin of claims test.

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT This Settlement Agreement (Agreement) is entered into among the United States of America, acting through the United States Department of Justice and the United States Attorney s Office

Department of Health and Human Services OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL REVIEW OF THE MASSACHUSETTS INSURANCE INTERCEPT PROGRAM JANET REHNQUIST Inspector General SEPTEMBER 2002 A-01-02-02501 Office of Inspector

Part III Administrative, Procedural, and Miscellaneous Claims Submitted to the IRS Whistleblower Office under Section 7623 Notice 2008-4 SECTION 1. PURPOSE This Notice provides guidance to the public on

GAO United States General Accounting Office Report to Congressional Requesters March 2003 TAX ADMINISTRATION Federal Payment Levy Program Measures, Performance, and Equity Can Be Improved GAO-03-356 March

Fiscal Year 2013 Report to the Congress on the Use of Section 7623 Table of Contents I. Executive Summary... 1 II. Program History... 2 A. Prior Law and Policy... 2 B. 2006 Amendments... 3 III. Program

GAO United States Government Accountability Office Report to the Joint Committee on Taxation May 2009 REAL ESTATE TAX DEDUCTION Taxpayers Face Challenges in Determining What Qualifies; Better Information

SB2730 TESTIMONY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TWENTY-SIXTH LEGISLATURE, 2012 ON THE FOLLOWING MEASURE: S.B. NO. 2730, RELATING TO FALSE CLAIMS TO THE STATE. BEFORE THE: SENATE COMMITTEE ON

TREASURY INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR TAX ADMINISTRATION Fiscal Year 2015 Statutory Review of Restrictions on Directly Contacting Taxpayers July 7, 2015 Reference Number: 2015-30-061 This report has cleared the

Page 1 of 12 I. PURPOSE The purpose of this policy is to comply with the requirements in Section 6032 of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (the DRA ), which amends Section 1902(a) of the Social Security

45.241 Definitions -- State agencies and Court of Justice to develop inventory of each debt -- Liquidated debts of agency, Court of Justice, or local government submitted to Department of Revenue -- Accounting

Page 2 Kerry Weems perform cost settlements to ensure that future final payments for school-based services are based on actual costs. In written comments on our draft report, the State agency concurred

Page 1 of 7 1. Purpose As a Company that does business with U.S. state and federal government health care programs (such as Medicare and Medicaid), Hill-Rom is required to maintain a system of policies

False Claims Act CMP212 Colorado Access is committed to a culture of compliance in which its employees, providers, contractors, and consultants are educated and knowledgeable about their role in reporting

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL AUDIT SERVICES March 24, 2015 Control Number ED-OIG/A05N0012 James W. Runcie Chief Operating Officer Federal Student Aid U.S. Department

United States Government Accountability Office Washington, DC 20548 January 27, 2012 The Honorable Darrel E. Issa Chairman The Honorable Elijah E. Cummings Ranking Member Committee on Oversight and Government

THE FCA INSPECTOR GENERAL: A COMMITMENT TO PUBLIC SERVICE FORWARD I am pleased to introduce the mission and authorities of the Office of Inspector General for the Farm Credit Administration. I hope this

HERITAGE FARM POLICY AND PROCEDURES Policy: False Claims Act and Whistleblower Provisions Date: October 8, 2013 Rationale: It is Heritage Farm s intent to make sure all claims are submitted in a timely

FRAUD AND ABUSE (SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS) (Information compiled from the Democratic Policy Committee (DPC) Report on The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education

I. Purpose The purpose of this policy is to inform all employees, contractors, and agents of the Brody School of Medicine ( BSOM ) about (i) the federal False Claims Act; (ii) North Carolina Medical Assistance

GAO United States Government Accountability Office Report to the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Secretary of Labor March 2011 PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE Data on Application and Coverage Denials

OSF HEALTHCARE FALSE CLAIMS PREVENTION AND WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTIONS POLICY: CC-109 It is the policy of OSF HealthCare (OSF) that false, inaccurate or improper claims will not be submitted to any payer.

TREASURY INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR TAX ADMINISTRATION Many Taxpayers Are Still Not Complying With Noncash Charitable Contribution Reporting Requirements December 20, 2012 Reference Number: 2013-40-009 This

Executive Summary Section 7623(b), providing for whistleblower awards, was enacted as part of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 (the Act). For information provided to the Internal Revenue Service

Legal Issues to Consider When Creating a Health Care Business Model Connie A. Raffa, J.D., LL.M. Business practices considered standard in other industries may in the health care industry be considered

STATE OF OKLAHOMA nd Session of the rd Legislature () SENATE BILL AS INTRODUCED By: Crain An Act relating to Medicaid fraud; amending O.S., Sections 0 and 0, which relate to the Oklahoma Medicaid Program

The Advantages of Qualified Settlement Funds Pi-Yi Mayo* and Bryn Poland 5223 Garth Road Baytown, Texas 77521 *Certified Elder Law Attorney by the National Elder Law Foundation Nothing in this paper is

TREASURY INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR TAX ADMINISTRATION Deficiencies Exist in the Control and Timely Resolution of August 20, 2009 Reference Number: 2009-30-114 This report has cleared the Treasury Inspector